RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Here's an interesting strategy Icouldget behind

Thanks, Bob; I'm appreciating the conversation with you and Marge.

You keep using the word "pandering" to refer to Zeese's campaign, and
defined it (reasonably) in terms of saying things you don't mean for
political advantage. I don't know anything more about Zeese's personal
views than what I get from his website, but I don't see any evidence of
pandering. Without specific evidence to the contrary, I assume he
believes what he says. From my point of view, some of his views are
inconsistent, but there's certainly nothing unusual about that. I
assume, in other words, that both his beliefs about socialized medicine
and his libertarian beliefs are sincerely held. But by seeking (and
getting) the Libertarian nomination, he is necessarily exposing himself
to a lot of Libertarians determined to change his mind. That seems to
me a very good thing. If you don't have specific evidence of Zeese's
insincerity, then I think your accusing him of pandering is

Since I'm in academentia, almost all of what I read professionally is
written by leftists. In mathematics, that orientation may not be
obvious, but in philosophy, history, psychology, medicine, and other
fields it often is. In addition, most of my friends and associates, for
the same reason, are leftists. In fact, one of the reasons I think
outreach to the left is so crucial is just that academics and
intellectuals in this country are about 98% leftist. That's a powerful
group to ignore, as the LP has. In politics, one of the most
interesting leftist books I've read is George Lakoff's Moral Politics.
I think what he says is true, and important, as far as he goes; I
analyzed the crucial shortcoming of the book in a Liberty article last